Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:23 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,278
Is hatred the glue that unites Trump with his supporters?

Liberals often say, even right here at SDMB, that right-wingers enjoy causing liberals to suffer; that lower-class white racists maintain life satisfaction by feeling that blacks are even worse off, and thus may even view black deprivation favorably. We often see "... and because it makes liberals angry" appended to the "arguments" by right-wingers here at SDMB.

Are these exaggerations? Strawmen? Or is the love of hatred ó the sheer joy of seeing one's opponents (or those perceived as social rivals) have pain and suffering ó the "glue" that unites Trump and his supporters?

Those who vote Republican today don't care about the Wall. They don't really care if the price of corn or apparel goes up or down. They couldn't care less about Russia, Syria or France and might not even be able to find those places on a map. They're just delighted their party is finally led by a no-nonsense Hater who shares their own amygdala-based emotional outlook.

The Atlantic is the best general-interest magazine published on this side of the Atlantic. While nobody would deny it has a bias for rational progressive thought, The Atlantic has striven for intelligence and objectivity. During the first 155 years of its existence it endorsed a total of only one (1) candidate for the Presidency ó a Republican. Recently it corrected even that bias; its Presidential endorsements are now tied: one R candidate and one D candidate.

Imagine my surprise, therefore, to read an opinion piece from an Atlantic Senior Editor arguing that "President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear." Read the whole article; I'll just excerpt one paragraph.
Quote:

The Cruelty Is the Point
President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear.
...
We can hear the spectacle of cruel laughter throughout the Trump era. There were the border-patrol agents cracking up at the crying immigrant children separated from their families, and the Trump adviser who delighted white supremacists when he mocked a child with Down syndrome who was separated from her mother. There were the police who laughed uproariously when the president encouraged them to abuse suspects, and the Fox News hosts mocking a survivor of the Pulse Nightclub massacre (and in the process inundating him with threats) ... There was the president mocking Puerto Rican accents shortly after thousands were killed and tens of thousands displaced by Hurricane Maria, the black athletes protesting unjustified killings by the police, the women of the #MeToo movement who have come forward with stories of sexual abuse, and the disabled reporter whose crime was reporting on Trump truthfully. It is not just that the perpetrators of this cruelty enjoy it; it is that they enjoy it with one another. Their shared laughter at the suffering of others is an adhesive that binds them to one another, and to Trump.
  #2  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:38 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Liberals often say, even right here at SDMB, that right-wingers enjoy causing liberals to suffer; that lower-class white racists maintain life satisfaction by feeling that blacks are even worse off, and thus may even view black deprivation favorably. We often see "... and because it makes liberals angry" appended to the "arguments" by right-wingers here at SDMB.

Are these exaggerations? Strawmen? Or is the love of hatred ó the sheer joy of seeing one's opponents (or those perceived as social rivals) have pain and suffering ó the "glue" that unites Trump and his supporters?

Those who vote Republican today don't care about the Wall. They don't really care if the price of corn or apparel goes up or down. They couldn't care less about Russia, Syria or France and might not even be able to find those places on a map. They're just delighted their party is finally led by a no-nonsense Hater who shares their own amygdala-based emotional outlook.

The Atlantic is the best general-interest magazine published on this side of the Atlantic. While nobody would deny it has a bias for rational progressive thought, The Atlantic has striven for intelligence and objectivity. During the first 155 years of its existence it endorsed a total of only one (1) candidate for the Presidency ó a Republican. Recently it corrected even that bias; its Presidential endorsements are now tied: one R candidate and one D candidate.

Imagine my surprise, therefore, to read an opinion piece from an Atlantic Senior Editor arguing that "President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear." Read the whole article; I'll just excerpt one paragraph.
Hate and fear, yes. And they forgot when Trump mocked the disabled reporter's physical condition.
  #3  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:46 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,844
Well, Trump and his followers also share a deluded belief in Trump's abilities.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #4  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:50 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation 10-12-14
Posts: 23,857
Fallacy of composition.
  #5  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:53 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Hate and fear, yes. And they forgot when Trump mocked the disabled reporter's physical condition.
So we've got surprise hatred, fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the President, their nice red hats...
  #6  
Old 10-09-2018, 07:28 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,540
Is hatred the glue that unites Trump with his supporters?

No, I believe this is mostly projection by the Left.

Or perhaps I should say

No, I believe this is mostly projection by the Left.

Regards,
Shodan
  #7  
Old 10-09-2018, 07:29 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,111
More fear than hatred. They see their way of life as threatened and they are correct. We're watching the dissolution of communities at an insane rate. Stability is essentially zero at this point and they see a lot of this as due to liberal policies. Cities lost community a long time ago, but rural areas still function largely with a community dynamic. Structural changes to employment and migration combined with cultural and legislative changes to community bulwarks have knocked out two of its wheels. People who live in these areas are scared that their systems of functioning no longer work and they lay the blame at the feet of coastals and they aren't entirely wrong. Of course, coastals don't see it that way, they see it as providing level playing fields and protecting minority speech and culture and they are also right.

The problem is that we as a country are not able to function efficiently under the same system. A social system that works in a city does not work in a rural area. I'm from a rural area. When my father had a stroke, it took two hours for him to make it to a hospital after calling 911. Societal policing and equity before the law simply doesn't work. In their county, there are four police officers. At any given time, only one will be on duty to cover the entire county. Having an equitable system of law is irrelevant because if something happens, it's two hours before a single police officer shows up. To deal with this, rural areas develop strong community networks. You have to know everyone and you have to know how everyone acts. That encourages strong, homogenous social ties. That means that everyone is members of the same churches, the same organizations, the same social networks. Acting predictably and reliably are highly valued social traits, non-conformity is a problem and social pressures work to stamp it out.

People in urban areas rely more on a 'societal social network.' They do rely strongly on government and laws to enforce social norms. They can call the police and have them there in three minutes. It's even something that police in urban areas record to show how efficient they are. Homogeneity is not necessary and quite frankly impractical. The transient nature of city dwelling means that you never really know your neighbors and they shift every few years. You have to learn to accept a certain degree of differences because it's simply impossible to function otherwise. As such, their social network consists strongly of equality before the law. They want to know that they are playing by the same rules as everyone else. They also want a government that will allow their differences and since they rely so much on government they trust it more.

A stereo-typical difference between this community and society networking is if you hear two guys in a fight next door. In the city, you call the cops. In the country, you run outside and step in between them.

Because of this basic difference in their view of social networks, they view things extremely differently. Community values shared values, shared ritual, shared social norms because they need to be able to predict how those two guys fighting are going to react when they step in between them. Society values equal treatment, diversity, strong government because they need to know that when the police show up, they'll treat everyone the same. Community views society as dangerous and society views community as oppressive. Neither is necessarily wrong, they just fail to see why these other systems exist and they fail to understand that the worst tendencies of these systems can be curbed without needing to destroy the entire structure.

So, to get to Trump, for a long time, the community structure has been under attack. Some of it has been necessary because community had gone to far and needed to be reigned in and some of it has not been necessary and while well-intentioned, it failed to account for these very necessary community structures. People who live in and really need these community structures are left in a very terrible place. Their structures for social functioning have largely been gutted, but the resources just don't exist to replace them with societal structures, so you have them in a very dangerous limbo. They are seeing rising crime, rising drug use, real social problems that they had a structure that worked to protect them from that has been gutted by a government that they see as distant and out of touch. What Trump represents to them is a reaction to get back some of their structures and to tear down the societal structures so that people within societal social networks feel some of the pain that they feel. It's not irrational or necessarily born of hatred, it's really a cry of desperation.
  #8  
Old 10-09-2018, 07:45 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
I do think there is a substantial chunk of Trump supporters for whom hatred is a big part of why they support Trump. Look at the most recent reaction to Taylor Swift's endorsement of Phil Bredesen in the Tennessee senate race.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/alt-c...115009860.html

I don't think, however, that this is something created by Trump. I think that in all societies, not just in the west or in countries that are majority white, there seems to be a group of young men who are filled with hate. In the USA of 2018 this manifests as hatred of groups like homosexuals, blacks, feminists, etc. In other countries and at other times it manifests differently (the jihadists of Saudi Arabia, the young men in Russia that take part in the fight clubs that are popular in that country, the Islamists in Mali that destroyed cultural artifacts in Timbuktu, the Nazi hatred of Jews, the Japanese treatment of Koreans back in the day, etc.). I think the common factor is young men who seem to be filled with hate and feel a need to attack "the other", whoever that might be in their particular society.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 10-09-2018 at 07:46 AM.
  #9  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:15 AM
Two Many Cats Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,971
senoy brilliant post! But don't go calling Chicagoans coastals.

Last edited by Two Many Cats; 10-09-2018 at 08:15 AM.
  #10  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:17 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
More fear than hatred. They see their way of life as threatened and they are correct. We're watching the dissolution of communities at an insane rate. Stability is essentially zero at this point and they see a lot of this as due to liberal policies. Cities lost community a long time ago, but rural areas still function largely with a community dynamic. Structural changes to employment and migration combined with cultural and legislative changes to community bulwarks have knocked out two of its wheels. People who live in these areas are scared that their systems of functioning no longer work and they lay the blame at the feet of coastals and they aren't entirely wrong. Of course, coastals don't see it that way, they see it as providing level playing fields and protecting minority speech and culture and they are also right.

The problem is that we as a country are not able to function efficiently under the same system. A social system that works in a city does not work in a rural area. I'm from a rural area. When my father had a stroke, it took two hours for him to make it to a hospital after calling 911. Societal policing and equity before the law simply doesn't work. In their county, there are four police officers. At any given time, only one will be on duty to cover the entire county. Having an equitable system of law is irrelevant because if something happens, it's two hours before a single police officer shows up. To deal with this, rural areas develop strong community networks. You have to know everyone and you have to know how everyone acts. That encourages strong, homogenous social ties. That means that everyone is members of the same churches, the same organizations, the same social networks. Acting predictably and reliably are highly valued social traits, non-conformity is a problem and social pressures work to stamp it out.

People in urban areas rely more on a 'societal social network.' They do rely strongly on government and laws to enforce social norms. They can call the police and have them there in three minutes. It's even something that police in urban areas record to show how efficient they are. Homogeneity is not necessary and quite frankly impractical. The transient nature of city dwelling means that you never really know your neighbors and they shift every few years. You have to learn to accept a certain degree of differences because it's simply impossible to function otherwise. As such, their social network consists strongly of equality before the law. They want to know that they are playing by the same rules as everyone else. They also want a government that will allow their differences and since they rely so much on government they trust it more.

A stereo-typical difference between this community and society networking is if you hear two guys in a fight next door. In the city, you call the cops. In the country, you run outside and step in between them.

Because of this basic difference in their view of social networks, they view things extremely differently. Community values shared values, shared ritual, shared social norms because they need to be able to predict how those two guys fighting are going to react when they step in between them. Society values equal treatment, diversity, strong government because they need to know that when the police show up, they'll treat everyone the same. Community views society as dangerous and society views community as oppressive. Neither is necessarily wrong, they just fail to see why these other systems exist and they fail to understand that the worst tendencies of these systems can be curbed without needing to destroy the entire structure.

So, to get to Trump, for a long time, the community structure has been under attack. Some of it has been necessary because community had gone to far and needed to be reigned in and some of it has not been necessary and while well-intentioned, it failed to account for these very necessary community structures. People who live in and really need these community structures are left in a very terrible place. Their structures for social functioning have largely been gutted, but the resources just don't exist to replace them with societal structures, so you have them in a very dangerous limbo. They are seeing rising crime, rising drug use, real social problems that they had a structure that worked to protect them from that has been gutted by a government that they see as distant and out of touch. What Trump represents to them is a reaction to get back some of their structures and to tear down the societal structures so that people within societal social networks feel some of the pain that they feel. It's not irrational or necessarily born of hatred, it's really a cry of desperation.
This is another aspect, which helps explain the rural = red and urban = blue divide that we have. What I don't understand about this explanation is why the rural red voters blame the blue urban politicians. The problems in rural America didn't come about because of liberal politicians supporting equality for homosexuals and transgender people. Those problems didn't come about because of BLM wanting stricter oversight of corrupt cops. AFAICT BLM has protested major PDs like the Dallas, Baltimore, and Chicago PD, as well as suburban PDs in places like Balch Springs and Ferguson. They don't protest against the rural police or sheriff departments in rural Wyoming (at least they haven't yet as far as I know). The problems of rural America, to the extent they can be blamed on immigrants, are also due in much larger part to Republican politicians than Democratic politicians. If Republican politicians supported a higher minimum wage and stronger enforcement on penalties against employers of undocumented workers then people in rural areas would have better jobs, but it's Republicans who support the employers who want lower pay and who hire undocumented immigrants under the table, not Democrats. I could go on and on about how the policies supported by Republicans are what hurt rural America more than the policies supported by the Democrats.

Edited to add. I'm not criticizing your conclusions, just trying to understand why the rural voters seem to place the blame on Democratic politicians. From my perspective it's Republican policies that have caused the problem, not Democratic policies.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 10-09-2018 at 08:19 AM.
  #11  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:41 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Fallacy of composition.
Do 100% of Trump supporters fit the stereotype of haters? Of course not; and only willful misconstruction would suggest otherwise.

Does a shared amygdala-based cognition emphasizing hatred, disgust and fear help explain why many millions of Americans support a man who is obviously racist, sexist, and eager to make jokes at the expense of the downtrodden? I think so and so does Adam Serwar. The fact that Trumpists at SDMB, a board supposedly noted for intelligent discourse, often append "and because I like to make liberals mad" to their "arguments" confirms this thesis.

I think Serwar's essay finally explains a great mystery: Why do so many Americans support this obviously despicable man?

Perhaps Bullitt has some argument against Serwar's thesis, but that he can only come up with the trite "Fallacy of composition" suggests to me that he does not.
  #12  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:41 AM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
More fear than hatred. They see their way of life as threatened and they are correct. We're watching the dissolution of communities at an insane rate. Stability is essentially zero at this point and they see a lot of this as due to liberal policies. Cities lost community a long time ago, but rural areas still function largely with a community dynamic. Structural changes to employment and migration combined with cultural and legislative changes to community bulwarks have knocked out two of its wheels. People who live in these areas are scared that their systems of functioning no longer work and they lay the blame at the feet of coastals and they aren't entirely wrong. Of course, coastals don't see it that way, they see it as providing level playing fields and protecting minority speech and culture and they are also right.

The problem is that we as a country are not able to function efficiently under the same system. A social system that works in a city does not work in a rural area. I'm from a rural area. When my father had a stroke, it took two hours for him to make it to a hospital after calling 911. Societal policing and equity before the law simply doesn't work. In their county, there are four police officers. At any given time, only one will be on duty to cover the entire county. Having an equitable system of law is irrelevant because if something happens, it's two hours before a single police officer shows up. To deal with this, rural areas develop strong community networks. You have to know everyone and you have to know how everyone acts. That encourages strong, homogenous social ties. That means that everyone is members of the same churches, the same organizations, the same social networks. Acting predictably and reliably are highly valued social traits, non-conformity is a problem and social pressures work to stamp it out.

People in urban areas rely more on a 'societal social network.' They do rely strongly on government and laws to enforce social norms. They can call the police and have them there in three minutes. It's even something that police in urban areas record to show how efficient they are. Homogeneity is not necessary and quite frankly impractical. The transient nature of city dwelling means that you never really know your neighbors and they shift every few years. You have to learn to accept a certain degree of differences because it's simply impossible to function otherwise. As such, their social network consists strongly of equality before the law. They want to know that they are playing by the same rules as everyone else. They also want a government that will allow their differences and since they rely so much on government they trust it more.

A stereo-typical difference between this community and society networking is if you hear two guys in a fight next door. In the city, you call the cops. In the country, you run outside and step in between them.

Because of this basic difference in their view of social networks, they view things extremely differently. Community values shared values, shared ritual, shared social norms because they need to be able to predict how those two guys fighting are going to react when they step in between them. Society values equal treatment, diversity, strong government because they need to know that when the police show up, they'll treat everyone the same. Community views society as dangerous and society views community as oppressive. Neither is necessarily wrong, they just fail to see why these other systems exist and they fail to understand that the worst tendencies of these systems can be curbed without needing to destroy the entire structure.

So, to get to Trump, for a long time, the community structure has been under attack. Some of it has been necessary because community had gone to far and needed to be reigned in and some of it has not been necessary and while well-intentioned, it failed to account for these very necessary community structures. People who live in and really need these community structures are left in a very terrible place. Their structures for social functioning have largely been gutted, but the resources just don't exist to replace them with societal structures, so you have them in a very dangerous limbo. They are seeing rising crime, rising drug use, real social problems that they had a structure that worked to protect them from that has been gutted by a government that they see as distant and out of touch. What Trump represents to them is a reaction to get back some of their structures and to tear down the societal structures so that people within societal social networks feel some of the pain that they feel. It's not irrational or necessarily born of hatred, it's really a cry of desperation.
The false dichotomy of these gross generalizations is what Trump and many others before him have been exploiting. It's nothing new.

The real glue is their gullibility in believing the narrative of the dichotomy, and believing that Trump actually gives a shit about them, or will do shit to help them.
  #13  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:48 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Do 100% of Trump supporters fit the stereotype of haters? Of course not; and only willful misconstruction would suggest otherwise.

Does a shared amygdala-based cognition emphasizing hatred, disgust and fear help explain why many millions of Americans support a man who is obviously racist, sexist, and eager to make jokes at the expense of the downtrodden? I think so and so does Adam Serwar. The fact that Trumpists at SDMB, a board supposedly noted for intelligent discourse, often append "and because I like to make liberals mad" to their "arguments" confirms this thesis.

I think Serwar's essay finally explains a great mystery: Why do so many Americans support this obviously despicable man?

Perhaps Bullitt has some argument against Serwar's thesis, but that he can only come up with the trite "Fallacy of composition" suggests to me that he does not.
I don't think the majority of Trump supporters are haters, but I do think the majority of haters are Trump supporters. To preempt the objection that I'm sure Trump supporters will bring up, I don't consider what I'll call "self defense hating" as making someone a hater. Let's say person A says "I hate gay people" and person B, a gay person, responds by saying "I hate person A because they hate me." Person A counts as a hater, person B does not.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 10-09-2018 at 08:50 AM.
  #14  
Old 10-09-2018, 08:52 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
This is another aspect, which helps explain the rural = red and urban = blue divide that we have. What I don't understand about this explanation is why the rural red voters blame the blue urban politicians. The problems in rural America didn't come about because of liberal politicians supporting equality for homosexuals and transgender people. Those problems didn't come about because of BLM wanting stricter oversight of corrupt cops. AFAICT BLM has protested major PDs like the Dallas, Baltimore, and Chicago PD, as well as suburban PDs in places like Balch Springs and Ferguson. They don't protest against the rural police or sheriff departments in rural Wyoming (at least they haven't yet as far as I know). The problems of rural America, to the extent they can be blamed on immigrants, are also due in much larger part to Republican politicians than Democratic politicians. If Republican politicians supported a higher minimum wage and stronger enforcement on penalties against employers of undocumented workers then people in rural areas would have better jobs, but it's Republicans who support the employers who want lower pay and who hire undocumented immigrants under the table, not Democrats. I could go on and on about how the policies supported by Republicans are what hurt rural America more than the policies supported by the Democrats.

Edited to add. I'm not criticizing your conclusions, just trying to understand why the rural voters seem to place the blame on Democratic politicians. From my perspective it's Republican policies that have caused the problem, not Democratic policies.
In the beginning, they didn't. Rural areas were reliably Democratic. We know about the Civil Rights era and what it did to the south (and the south let's not kid ourselves largely shifted over racism), but it doesn't explain the shift in say rural New York or Michigan which have traditionally been pro-civil rights. What happened was that after the Civil Rights era, Democratic politicians began to seize on that momentum to push further Civil Rights legislation and Republicans were quick to paint themselves as upholders of tradition. I think what really started to push rural Democrats into Republicans were the attacks on religion. Notably Engel v Vitale and the end of prayer in schools. I think this is where you first start to see this idea that the left was not just about doing its own thing, but actively preventing other people from doing theirs. It was really the first time we see the left actively attacking community structures and once it was won, it encouraged further pushing from the left and really made rural people feel under attack.

Those types of homogenous rituals are really a key to rural community. These attacks on ritual are really the things that more than anything pushed people right. Every time you hear about a lawsuit about not having to say the pledge in school or not letting a coach lead a football team in prayer or taking down a cross in a school hallway--you may see that as a victory for minority equality, but they see it as an attack on their community and way of life by an outsider. (It's part of the whole 'Merry Christmas' ridiculousness that Trump is so happy to exploit. To you, it's a petty thing that includes other cultures to say "Happy Holidays." To them it's a "They won't even let us have this?") That's part of what's going on with the whole 'kneeling for the anthem' controversy. You likely see it as simply a peaceful way to draw attention to police brutality (which it is.) Someone who has a more 'community social structure' sees it as an attack on shared ritual and community itself. In their minds, it's someone saying, "I'm not part of your community and wish to destroy it." When a political party then says, "They're right to kneel." Someone from a community social structure sees this as saying, "We wish to destroy you." There is a real belief among rural communities that Democrats look down on them and wish to see them destroyed. (And I'm not sure that they are completely wrong in this regard either. I know that when I'm online, my leftist friends certainly aren't celebrating rural culture except in caricature and I have heard many comments about 'waiting for them to die' in regards to rural, older voters. This certainly shouldn't breed confidence that they are valued and loved by the left.)

Last edited by senoy; 10-09-2018 at 08:54 AM.
  #15  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:07 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
In the beginning, they didn't. Rural areas were reliably Democratic. We know about the Civil Rights era and what it did to the south (and the south let's not kid ourselves largely shifted over racism), but it doesn't explain the shift in say rural New York or Michigan which have traditionally been pro-civil rights. What happened was that after the Civil Rights era, Democratic politicians began to seize on that momentum to push further Civil Rights legislation and Republicans were quick to paint themselves as upholders of tradition. I think what really started to push rural Democrats into Republicans were the attacks on religion. Notably Engel v Vitale and the end of prayer in schools. I think this is where you first start to see this idea that the left was not just about doing its own thing, but actively preventing other people from doing theirs. It was really the first time we see the left actively attacking community structures and once it was won, it encouraged further pushing from the left and really made rural people feel under attack.

Those types of homogenous rituals are really a key to rural community. These attacks on ritual are really the things that more than anything pushed people right. Every time you hear about a lawsuit about not having to say the pledge in school or not letting a coach lead a football team in prayer or taking down a cross in a school hallway--you may see that as a victory for minority equality, but they see it as an attack on their community and way of life by an outsider. (It's part of the whole 'Merry Christmas' ridiculousness that Trump is so happy to exploit. To you, it's a petty thing that includes other cultures to say "Happy Holidays." To them it's a "They won't even let us have this?") That's part of what's going on with the whole 'kneeling for the anthem' controversy. You likely see it as simply a peaceful way to draw attention to police brutality (which it is.) Someone who has a more 'community social structure' sees it as an attack on shared ritual and community itself. In their minds, it's someone saying, "I'm not part of your community and wish to destroy it." When a political party then says, "They're right to kneel." Someone from a community social structure sees this as saying, "We wish to destroy you." There is a real belief among rural communities that Democrats look down on them and wish to see them destroyed. (And I'm not sure that they are completely wrong in this regard either. I know that when I'm online, my leftist friends certainly aren't celebrating rural culture except in caricature and I have heard many comments about 'waiting for them to die' in regards to rural, older voters. This certainly shouldn't breed confidence that they are valued and loved by the left.)
The bolded part about the rituals unifying a community and most of what follows is what I have trouble understanding. I think you are correct that rural communities are looked down upon by Democrats. I think that the people in those rural communities, however, fail to see why urban Democrats look down on them. When the people in rural communities say "I won't tolerate you because you're gay / black / Muslim / atheist / transgender / Mexican / whatever" it's a natural reaction for the gay / black / Muslim / atheist / transgender / Mexican /community to turn around and say "if you don't like me, then I don't like you." This is where the looking down upon the rural communities comes from. I just don't get why excluding these groups would unify a community. Wouldn't, for example, an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia benefit more from a new factory producing parts for solar power production opening up in their community than they would benefit from their gay neighbor moving to San Francisco?

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 10-09-2018 at 09:09 AM.
  #16  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:14 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... The fact that Trumpists at SDMB, a board supposedly noted for intelligent discourse, often append "and because I like to make liberals mad" to their "arguments" confirms this thesis. ...
Cite?
  #17  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:41 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
The bolded part about the rituals unifying a community and most of what follows is what I have trouble understanding. I think you are correct that rural communities are looked down upon by Democrats. I think that the people in those rural communities, however, fail to see why urban Democrats look down on them. When the people in rural communities say "I won't tolerate you because you're gay / black / Muslim / atheist / transgender / Mexican / whatever" it's a natural reaction for the gay / black / Muslim / atheist / transgender / Mexican /community to turn around and say "if you don't like me, then I don't like you." This is where the looking down upon the rural communities comes from. I just don't get why excluding these groups would unify a community. Wouldn't, for example, an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia benefit more from a new factory producing parts for solar power production opening up in their community than they would benefit from their gay neighbor moving to San Francisco?
For your last point, yes they would, but nobody is actually opening up a solar power factory in West Virginia. The claim is that a solar power factory would open somewhere and they could move and get a job. That's a 'societal' solution since it destroys the 'community.' If Hillary Clinton had said, "I am going to open a solar factory with a thousand jobs in Welch." She would have won southern West Virginia. Instead she said, "Your jobs are going away, I want to train you for other jobs that you'll probably have to move away for." That's not something that a community social structure likes.

As for your other points, it's important to note that community structures are not always WASPs, what they are is homogenous. There's a difference. Rural Hispanics as an example, are much more Republican than urban Hispanics. Trump actually did better among rural Hispanics than Mitt Romney. Let's not pretend in the era of identity politics that rural minorities are ruby red, but they are noticeably more red than their urban counterparts.

It's also worth noting that community homogeneity does allow for diversity, but it's diversity of an individual and not a group. Their definition of homogeneity changes as well, it's just slower to change and needs time to process and absorb newcomers. My father used to say about racism that 100 Mexicans in a neighborhood are 'a problem.' 4 Mexicans are 'The Garcia family.' Growing up in a rural community, I saw this frequently. If a black family moved in, there would be an adjustment, but within a short amount of time (which I am not saying always went completely smoothly), they would become accepted. If a group of people (not necessarily minorities even white construction workers from another state.) they were a problem. They overwhelmed the ability of the community to absorb them and redefine itself. You would have much more serious conflicts between the 'new white people' en masse, than the new Hispanic people as a family. Communities exist under an assimilation mindset. Newcomers have to be assimilated to provide the community with the stability and safety that it craves. Impediments to that assimilation are the enemy. Any disruption to the assimilation process is scary and an attack. You have to remember that social pressure is really their only tool to create a functioning social unit. When you eliminate that tool, it creates a real feeling of powerlessness.
  #18  
Old 10-09-2018, 09:48 AM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,291
It's more about fear than hatred. For decades, many conservatives have seen liberals winning culture war after culture war and feel helpless about it. They feel the blue wave has been advancing inexorably until it is about to engulf them. They're desperate for something or someone to turn the tide. The Supreme Court is also of paramount importance. Many Trump supporters dislike him as a person but are willing to swallow almost anything if it means 2-3 conservative justices instead of 2-3 liberal justices.
  #19  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:41 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
... The fact that Trumpists at SDMB, a board supposedly noted for intelligent discourse, often append "and because I like to make liberals mad" to their "arguments" confirms this thesis. ...
Cite?
Gosh! Which Trumpist should I search to find such a cite? How about ...

HurricaneDitka !
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Poking libtards in the eye is just an ancillary benefit.
  #20  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:41 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,275
senoy, if these communities kept to themselves, and made it clear that gays/blacks/Jews/Gay Black Jews were not welcome there, then that would be one thing (one despicable thing, but one thing nonetheless). But they vote, and based on the way that our society is structured, rural areas have disproportionately more power on a federal level -- and this is intentional. Whenever someone suggests, say, getting rid of the electoral college and using a simple popular vote to determine the president, we hear the protests: "But then California and New York would decide who the president is!" Well... First of all, New York is only number 4, and Texas and Florida are between it and California (both red states -- although if we didn't give disproportionate power to rural areas, they'd be LESS red). But even so, if California and New York have more people than other states, why shouldn't they get more of a say?

I digress. The point is -- these people aren't just saying, "we want our homogeneous communities to stay the way that they are", they're saying "we want society as a whole to follow our rules". They don't vote to ban gay marriage and abortion for everyone, not just in their small town. If you believe that this is a violation of the human rights of homosexuals, what are you suppose to say?

And even if they did just ban Gay Marriage at home, what are we supposed to say? "Fine, make life a living hell for gay people, as long as you only do it within your municipal borders"? If we are going to take a stand and say that discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong everywhere, and we should fight it in any way we can. I'm not saying we need to invade Saudi Arabia and force them to legalize gay marriage, but within our own borders? This is America, and as Americans, we've decided (after way more arguing than necessary) to be part of the 21st century. If these people want to live in the 14th century so bad, they can move to a theocracy.
  #21  
Old 10-09-2018, 10:54 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
senoy, if these communities kept to themselves, and made it clear that gays/blacks/Jews/Gay Black Jews were not welcome there, then that would be one thing (one despicable thing, but one thing nonetheless). But they vote, and based on the way that our society is structured, rural areas have disproportionately more power on a federal level -- and this is intentional. Whenever someone suggests, say, getting rid of the electoral college and using a simple popular vote to determine the president, we hear the protests: "But then California and New York would decide who the president is!" Well... First of all, New York is only number 4, and Texas and Florida are between it and California (both red states -- although if we didn't give disproportionate power to rural areas, they'd be LESS red). But even so, if California and New York have more people than other states, why shouldn't they get more of a say?

I digress. The point is -- these people aren't just saying, "we want our homogeneous communities to stay the way that they are", they're saying "we want society as a whole to follow our rules". They don't vote to ban gay marriage and abortion for everyone, not just in their small town. If you believe that this is a violation of the human rights of homosexuals, what are you suppose to say?

And even if they did just ban Gay Marriage at home, what are we supposed to say? "Fine, make life a living hell for gay people, as long as you only do it within your municipal borders"? If we are going to take a stand and say that discrimination is wrong, then it's wrong everywhere, and we should fight it in any way we can. I'm not saying we need to invade Saudi Arabia and force them to legalize gay marriage, but within our own borders? This is America, and as Americans, we've decided (after way more arguing than necessary) to be part of the 21st century. If these people want to live in the 14th century so bad, they can move to a theocracy.
The final paragraph is where the disagreement is. They actually aren't trying to make abortion illegal for everyone. Roe v. Wade is what made it so that they themselves weren't allowed to make it illegal. Similarly, when Massachusetts made gay marriage legal, most of them were saying 'Glad we don't live in Massachusetts.' Their issue was that they didn't want it legal where they lived. Your statement is exactly the problem that they have. "We (meaning people from urban areas outside of their communities) have decided that this is what we want and we're going to make you do it, regardless of your wishes. If you don't like it, you can get out of 'our' (meaning not your) country, despite the fact that you have been here just as long and your way of life is in fact much, much older." I think you can see why that would cause a certain degree of fear within a population.

Your final paragraph is exactly what I was saying. They exist in a community where they need that homogeneity and feeling of 'oneness' in order to survive. You exist in a 'society' where homogeneity is not prized. You feel that their need for homogeneity is rightly discriminatory-it almost has to be unless homogeneity is something formed simply from chance. You think they shouldn't be able to be discriminatory and work to change their laws. They feel (correctly by the way) that their social structures are being attacked. And let's face it, the posters here agree that they are attacking them, they just think that they are right to attack them. I won't disagree as to who is right or who is wrong in this essential divide, but the question is what unites the supporters of Trump and the (real) feeling that their structures are under attack is what it is.

Last edited by senoy; 10-09-2018 at 10:56 AM.
  #22  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:01 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 11,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
It's more about fear than hatred. For decades, many conservatives have seen liberals winning culture war after culture war and feel helpless about it. They feel the blue wave has been advancing inexorably until it is about to engulf them.
Why do they care?
  #23  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:01 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,127
Well, I just Googled "Trump Is Love" and got 717,000,000 hits (more than three times as many as "Trump Is Hate"), so the OP is wrong.
  #24  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:03 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
For your last point, yes they would, but nobody is actually opening up a solar power factory in West Virginia. The claim is that a solar power factory would open somewhere and they could move and get a job. That's a 'societal' solution since it destroys the 'community.' If Hillary Clinton had said, "I am going to open a solar factory with a thousand jobs in Welch." She would have won southern West Virginia. Instead she said, "Your jobs are going away, I want to train you for other jobs that you'll probably have to move away for." That's not something that a community social structure likes.

As for your other points, it's important to note that community structures are not always WASPs, what they are is homogenous. There's a difference. Rural Hispanics as an example, are much more Republican than urban Hispanics. Trump actually did better among rural Hispanics than Mitt Romney. Let's not pretend in the era of identity politics that rural minorities are ruby red, but they are noticeably more red than their urban counterparts.

It's also worth noting that community homogeneity does allow for diversity, but it's diversity of an individual and not a group. Their definition of homogeneity changes as well, it's just slower to change and needs time to process and absorb newcomers. My father used to say about racism that 100 Mexicans in a neighborhood are 'a problem.' 4 Mexicans are 'The Garcia family.' Growing up in a rural community, I saw this frequently. If a black family moved in, there would be an adjustment, but within a short amount of time (which I am not saying always went completely smoothly), they would become accepted. If a group of people (not necessarily minorities even white construction workers from another state.) they were a problem. They overwhelmed the ability of the community to absorb them and redefine itself. You would have much more serious conflicts between the 'new white people' en masse, than the new Hispanic people as a family. Communities exist under an assimilation mindset. Newcomers have to be assimilated to provide the community with the stability and safety that it craves. Impediments to that assimilation are the enemy. Any disruption to the assimilation process is scary and an attack. You have to remember that social pressure is really their only tool to create a functioning social unit. When you eliminate that tool, it creates a real feeling of powerlessness.
One issue is that they way rural people vote seems to invite the problem. Take, for example, the recent response after the murder of Mollie Tibbetts by an illegal immigrant. The accused in this incident was working at a local dairy farm, along with several other undocumented workers from Mexico. Of course the reason they were there is because the owner of the farm did not want to pay decent wages to local workers, preferring to instead to hire cheaper undocumented workers. As a liberal, my response to this is that if you donít want immigrants moving in to your community in large numbers and working for less than minimum wage there are better solutions. One would be to prosecute the business owners who hire illegal immigrants. Another would be to support higher wages and better working conditions so that local people would be more likely to take these jobs and the owners of the dairy farm or whatever wouldnít have to turn to immigrants to take these jobs. What happens in the real world, however, is that the locals elect someone like Steve King who works to make things worse for immigrants rather than a Democrat who would work to pass laws to make the lives of local workers better.
  #25  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:21 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Your final paragraph is exactly what I was saying. They exist in a community where they need that homogeneity and feeling of 'oneness' in order to survive. You exist in a 'society' where homogeneity is not prized. You feel that their need for homogeneity is rightly discriminatory-it almost has to be unless homogeneity is something formed simply from chance. You think they shouldn't be able to be discriminatory and work to change their laws. They feel (correctly by the way) that their social structures are being attacked. And let's face it, the posters here agree that they are attacking them, they just think that they are right to attack them. I won't disagree as to who is right or who is wrong in this essential divide, but the question is what unites the supporters of Trump and the (real) feeling that their structures are under attack is what it is.
I grew up in a small town of 20,000 people and know many from that town who, as you say, value homogeneity in the community. What I donít get, even having grown up in such a community, is how homogeneity actually benefits the people in the community. If someone or even a group of people I went to school with, for example, had come out as being gay, or atheists, or transgender, how would that have hurt me, or any of the other kids in my class that I went to school with? If a kid stays seated for the pledge of allegiance or doesnít say a prayer before the football game on Friday night, how does that hurt anyone? OTOH, itís obvious to me how it is hurting someone if one of the kids who does say the pledge and pray before the football games bullies a kid who doesnít do those things.
  #26  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:23 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,412
I think the OP may have it but the wrong way around. Liberals will hate on anyone who isn't sufficiently supportive of them. I remember a cartoon consisting of four panels. The first three each consisted of a different liberal berating someone along the lines of, "If you don't support X...". The fourth panel consisted of the three liberals asking each other why they lost the election. The opposition, of course, welcomes these people with open arms. So yes, Trump & co delight in being abused by the Left because it's a vote-winner for them.
  #27  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:34 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I think the OP may have it but the wrong way around. Liberals will hate on anyone who isn't sufficiently supportive of them. I remember a cartoon consisting of four panels. The first three each consisted of a different liberal berating someone along the lines of, "If you don't support X...". The fourth panel consisted of the three liberals asking each other why they lost the election. The opposition, of course, welcomes these people with open arms. So yes, Trump & co delight in being abused by the Left because it's a vote-winner for them.
Or to put it more succinctly: "no u".

Trump literally spread white nationalist propaganda, supported anti-gay and anti-trans policies, spent his entire campaign endlessly linking the words "black", "urban, and "crime", and that's not even getting into the whole GOP position on issues that affect women. And your argument is that liberals are the mean ones for opposing those things? Or is it the mean things liberals said, as opposed to all the nice things Trump and his supporters said about Clinton and her supporters?

When you're done stamping down those molehills, better grab your shovel and make a start on the Himalayas behind you.
  #28  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:34 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I think the OP may have it but the wrong way around. Liberals will hate on anyone who isn't sufficiently supportive of them. I remember a cartoon consisting of four panels. The first three each consisted of a different liberal berating someone along the lines of, "If you don't support X...". The fourth panel consisted of the three liberals asking each other why they lost the election. The opposition, of course, welcomes these people with open arms. So yes, Trump & co delight in being abused by the Left because it's a vote-winner for them.
The only reason liberals berate anyone is if that person initiated the hatred. Liberals don't go around saying "I hate A, B, and C but support X, Y, and Z." What they say is "X, Y, and Z are harmless, and I don't understand why some people who are A, B, and C hate people who are X, Y, or Z. Because of that, I don't support people of groups A, B and C if those particular people are haters of people in groups X, Y, and Z."
  #29  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:39 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
The final paragraph is where the disagreement is. They actually aren't trying to make abortion illegal for everyone. Roe v. Wade is what made it so that they themselves weren't allowed to make it illegal. Similarly, when Massachusetts made gay marriage legal, most of them were saying 'Glad we don't live in Massachusetts.' Their issue was that they didn't want it legal where they lived.
I believe that all people are equal and deserve equal rights. That includes both gay people in Massachusetts and gay people in West Virginia. If they don't want gay marriage to be legal where they live, it is because they have an irrational hatred of homosexuals. There is ONE other explanation - you're one of those ultra-libertarians who says the government shouldn't condone gay marriage OR straight marriage, because it should stay out of the marriage business altogether - but I very much doubt that there is a large number of people for whom that applies.

Quote:
Your statement is exactly the problem that they have. "We (meaning people from urban areas outside of their communities) have decided that this is what we want and we're going to make you do it, regardless of your wishes. If you don't like it, you can get out of 'our' (meaning not your) country, despite the fact that you have been here just as long and your way of life is in fact much, much older." I think you can see why that would cause a certain degree of fear within a population.
Slave owning is a much older way of life too, and we told them that wasn't OK either. We had to fight a war to get the point across, and that's what we did. Because if these people are calling themselves "American" and discriminating against blacks and gays, how are we as American supposed to pressure third-world countries to modernize their human rights laws?

Quote:
Your final paragraph is exactly what I was saying. They exist in a community where they need that homogeneity and feeling of 'oneness' in order to survive. You exist in a 'society' where homogeneity is not prized. You feel that their need for homogeneity is rightly discriminatory-it almost has to be unless homogeneity is something formed simply from chance.
They do not need homogeneity and a feeling of 'oneness' to survive. They need it to feel superior to those they dislike. If it makes them feel funny to see two gay men walking down the street, tough. They can suck it up. Because as upset as they are about being exposed to "the gays", how do you think those gay people feel living in a town where they are hated this much? How do you think a kid growing up in Smalltown, USA feels when his parents disown him and kick him out of this town where "oneness" is so important and community is so powerful, just because he feels things towards men that he has no control over?

Quote:
You think they shouldn't be able to be discriminatory and work to change their laws. They feel (correctly by the way) that their social structures are being attacked. And let's face it, the posters here agree that they are attacking them, they just think that they are right to attack them. I won't disagree as to who is right or who is wrong in this essential divide, but the question is what unites the supporters of Trump and the (real) feeling that their structures are under attack is what it is.
If their social structures are evil, then the parts of those social structures that are evil need to be removed. Period. Is urban society perfect? Nope, and there's definitely a lot of crap we need to change about urban culture too. Does that mean that rural societies get a free pass to discriminate? Nope. We aren't attacking their society -- just the parts of their society that are discriminatory, hateful, and evil. If that's the hill they want to die on, history won't look kindly on them a hundred years from now.
  #30  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:43 AM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
The only reason liberals berate anyone is if that person initiated the hatred.
Pull the other one. It has bells on it.
  #31  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:44 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I grew up in a small town of 20,000 people and know many from that town who, as you say, value homogeneity in the community. What I donít get, even having grown up in such a community, is how homogeneity actually benefits the people in the community. If someone or even a group of people I went to school with, for example, had come out as being gay, or atheists, or transgender, how would that have hurt me, or any of the other kids in my class that I went to school with? If a kid stays seated for the pledge of allegiance or doesnít say a prayer before the football game on Friday night, how does that hurt anyone? OTOH, itís obvious to me how it is hurting someone if one of the kids who does say the pledge and pray before the football games bullies a kid who doesnít do those things.
It hinges on community vs society and how these social structures work. Community works by everyone being on board. It doesn't work when people aren't on board. They are literally 'not part of the community.' Getting back to earlier posts, it's about predictability and stability. Society uses governmental structures to enforce conformity. You get rid of say thieves by creating a governmental structure that pressures thieves to stop thieving. Community structures don't work that way. They work by creating an environment in which social pressures force thieves to conform to a certain way of thinking or else risk being thrown out of the community and the benefits it provides. When people aren't all onboard, then the social pressures that prevent that thieving become weaker and it leaves people more susceptible to thievery. Community though can't just work in isolation like society can. You can't say "I'm part of the community when it comes to thieving, but not so much when it comes to murdering." Community only works very broadly, so it's much harder to target it. You are either part of the community or you are not. You probably experienced this growing up. By the time a town reaches 20 thousand people, the 'community' as a whole is already under strain, so likely you had multiple communities within your town. You likely were pretty much like people in those other communities, but my guess is that there were communities that you were not a part of and were even unwelcome. You were placed within another group despite the fact that you probably only differed from them superficially, maybe only by the neighborhood you lived in. The community though to function has to be a homogenous single entity with those within and without.

This means that all deviations from the normal are egregious because they signal that an individual is not part of that community, but something else. If you are gay, that could be a threat to the institutions of the community (it doesn't have to be, community is not completely rigid, it's just slower to adapt. There are certainly rural communities where homosexuality is not an issue.) and so must be suppressed. The benefit though is a very strong sense of in-group where the people within that community function as protectors and stabilizers for others within that group. What's important though is that all of the members have to work within the confines of the group and be seen as part of that group. It's actually possible for non-conforming members to still be part of the group as long as they don't attack the group structure.

I'll give you an example. My mom lives in a town of about 300. She's very religious as most people are. There's a guy named Stevie who lives in her town and grew up there who is very flamboyantly gay. Stevie though is universally liked by this religious, small community. He is generous, participates in the 'rituals of community' and attends their church and all of that good stuff. If you asked the people in that community, "Is homosexuality sinful?" They would all say, "Yep, no doubt. Bunch of godless heathens." If you asked them "Is Stevie going to Hell then?" They would say, "Well, you know, he's just Stevie. A little mixed up, but good people. God understands these things." The point is that Stevie is gay and largely loved by the community because he does not present as a threat to that community. He upholds the community structures and because of that is well-liked. Those community structures are what offer the safety and stability of a group of people without needing to rely on societal structures which prove inadequate.
  #32  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:46 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,618
I think hatred is the universal characteristic of the far right. I don't buy that rural areas NEED homogeneity, they THINK they need it because they have little experience dealing with non-whites, non-Americans, and non-Christians. They fear what they don't know and the right exploits this fear with spreading of white nationalist hate speech. Sure, the rural areas were formerly Democratic. So was the South. But with the Civil Rights movements, formerly racist white Democrats switched parties. This fear is stoked by the phony outrage over anthem protests or saying Happy Holidays or hysteria over non-existing bans of the pledge of allegiance or hysteria about a Pepsi can (REALLY stupid since it was RC, not Pepsi) from 2001.

So the Republicans milk white nationalism for easy votes the same way they milk the anti-abortion people for easy votes. The racists and theocrats vote their way, cutting their own economic throats to get the perceived goal of protection from non-existing threats. The donor class laughs all the way to the bank as they reap the financial rewards of rural white insecurity.
  #33  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:49 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Pull the other one. It has bells on it.
Give one counter example, please.
  #34  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:51 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I think the OP may have it but the wrong way around.
Your profile suggests you're from Scotland. I've asked this question before but you didn't deign to answer. Let me try again in a larger font:
Where in heck do you get your news about the U.S.A. from? ?
Is it from Rupert Murdoch TV?
  #35  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:55 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I think the OP may have it but the wrong way around. Liberals will hate on anyone who isn't sufficiently supportive of them.
Dude, you need to open your eyes to more than some cartoon you saw that one time.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #36  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:58 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
The only reason liberals berate anyone is if that person initiated the hatred.
You really need to open your eyes, because that is simply not true. I will cite the hate on me in the Kavanaugh threads. I merely pointed out that he was entitled to the presumption of his innocence, that people were presuming his guilt, and that Ford provided no evidence to back up her claim. And the portals of Hell opened. At no point did I say her claim was false. At no time did I call her a liar.
  #37  
Old 10-09-2018, 11:58 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
It hinges on community vs society and how these social structures work. Community works by everyone being on board. It doesn't work when people aren't on board. They are literally 'not part of the community.' Getting back to earlier posts, it's about predictability and stability. Society uses governmental structures to enforce conformity. You get rid of say thieves by creating a governmental structure that pressures thieves to stop thieving. Community structures don't work that way. They work by creating an environment in which social pressures force thieves to conform to a certain way of thinking or else risk being thrown out of the community and the benefits it provides. When people aren't all onboard, then the social pressures that prevent that thieving become weaker and it leaves people more susceptible to thievery. Community though can't just work in isolation like society can. You can't say "I'm part of the community when it comes to thieving, but not so much when it comes to murdering." Community only works very broadly, so it's much harder to target it. You are either part of the community or you are not. You probably experienced this growing up. By the time a town reaches 20 thousand people, the 'community' as a whole is already under strain, so likely you had multiple communities within your town. You likely were pretty much like people in those other communities, but my guess is that there were communities that you were not a part of and were even unwelcome. You were placed within another group despite the fact that you probably only differed from them superficially, maybe only by the neighborhood you lived in. The community though to function has to be a homogenous single entity with those within and without.

This means that all deviations from the normal are egregious because they signal that an individual is not part of that community, but something else. If you are gay, that could be a threat to the institutions of the community (it doesn't have to be, community is not completely rigid, it's just slower to adapt. There are certainly rural communities where homosexuality is not an issue.) and so must be suppressed. The benefit though is a very strong sense of in-group where the people within that community function as protectors and stabilizers for others within that group. What's important though is that all of the members have to work within the confines of the group and be seen as part of that group. It's actually possible for non-conforming members to still be part of the group as long as they don't attack the group structure.

I'll give you an example. My mom lives in a town of about 300. She's very religious as most people are. There's a guy named Stevie who lives in her town and grew up there who is very flamboyantly gay. Stevie though is universally liked by this religious, small community. He is generous, participates in the 'rituals of community' and attends their church and all of that good stuff. If you asked the people in that community, "Is homosexuality sinful?" They would all say, "Yep, no doubt. Bunch of godless heathens." If you asked them "Is Stevie going to Hell then?" They would say, "Well, you know, he's just Stevie. A little mixed up, but good people. God understands these things." The point is that Stevie is gay and largely loved by the community because he does not present as a threat to that community. He upholds the community structures and because of that is well-liked. Those community structures are what offer the safety and stability of a group of people without needing to rely on societal structures which prove inadequate.
IMHO this seems to be the crux of the matter regarding the rural / urban divide. I think the hate thing is a whole different ball game, and as I mentioned upthread is present in vastly different cultures from different time periods, i.e. is part of human nature for some humans. So the question then is why do societal structures prove inadequate in rural areas? IMHO it's because the people who they elect to represent them and run the societal structures in fact represent the few rich businessmen in town (like the dairy farmer who hired the guy who killed Mollie Tibbetts) rather than representing the actual interests of the ordinary people. What I don't get is why the rural people don't see that and change the way they vote.
  #38  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:10 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
IMHO this seems to be the crux of the matter regarding the rural / urban divide. I think the hate thing is a whole different ball game, and as I mentioned upthread is present in vastly different cultures from different time periods, i.e. is part of human nature for some humans. So the question then is why do societal structures prove inadequate in rural areas? IMHO it's because the people who they elect to represent them and run the societal structures in fact represent the few rich businessmen in town (like the dairy farmer who hired the guy who killed Mollie Tibbetts) rather than representing the actual interests of the ordinary people. What I don't get is why the rural people don't see that and change the way they vote.
It has to do with the size of the community and limited resources. They can't afford to antagonize the rich dairy-man because he provides employment and the resources they need to function. When you talk about small communities, they don't have the levels of resources to pool into making grand societal structures. Let's talk about say West Virginia. Let's say that West Virginia votes next year to be a liberal paradise. They tax the rich and lift up the poor and so on. Where exactly does the money for this come from? They have a GDP of 57 billion dollars. That's about half the size of Hartford Connecticut's GDP, for the entire state. There isn't money for larger police forces or better roads or anything else for that matter. There are no rich people to tax and the few that do exist, you can't afford to get rid of. Societal structures that work in dense, wealthy places just are unaffordable and impractical in Nowhere, Wyoming. They have to rely on their community for pretty much everything and so a community style of social structure springs up to support these areas.

Last edited by senoy; 10-09-2018 at 12:10 PM.
  #39  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:10 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
You really need to open your eyes ...
So we still don't know where we get our news from?
  #40  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:10 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
You really need to open your eyes, because that is simply not true. I will cite the hate on me in the Kavanaugh threads. I merely pointed out that he was entitled to the presumption of his innocence, that people were presuming his guilt, and that Ford provided no evidence to back up her claim. And the portals of Hell opened. At no point did I say her claim was false. At no time did I call her a liar.
There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin....

1) you are a random poster on a message board. You are communicating with other random posters on a message board. That's not indicative of what "liberals" as a whole do. If your conceit is that some liberals are assholes, I will happily grant you that. But we are talking about liberals as a whole.

2) Kavanaugh is not entitled to a presumption of innocence because he is not facing criminal charges, so the legal terms "guilty" and "innocent" are totally irrelevant. We aren't trying to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that he tried to rape Ford, we are trying to determine whether he is fit to be a supreme court justice.

3) when a woman accuses a man of rape, and your first response is "by God, that poor man! He could be.... FALSELY ACCUSED! That's like the worst thing that could happen to a person!" you're an asshole. Obviously he could be innocent. That's why we didn't, say, immediately lock Kavanaugh up in federal prison. It reeks with a very similar stench to JAQing off - "I'm not SAYING Ford is a liar, I'm just point out that she MIGHT BE!". and you very well know this.

EDIT: And number 4, you don't have to say the words "Ford is a liar" to accuse her of lying. Just look how many people get warnings here on the Dope for accusing other posters of lying without saying those words. Obviously if Kavanaugh didn't attempt to rape her but she claims to clearly remember him trying to, then she is a liar.

Last edited by Babale; 10-09-2018 at 12:13 PM.
  #41  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:10 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,297
Not nearly as strong as the leftist glue of smug self righteousness and perpetual outrage.

Last edited by Ashtura; 10-09-2018 at 12:13 PM.
  #42  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:23 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Not nearly as strong as the leftist glue of smug self righteousness and perpetual outrage.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a "leftist"

Have you looked at some of the numbers when it comes to what our government is doing? How much we spend on healthcare, the war on drugs, and what we are getting in return?

If so: why the hell are you NOT outraged?
  #43  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:31 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Gosh! Which Trumpist should I search to find such a cite? How about ...

HurricaneDitka !
This is a non-responsive cite. Let me try to explain. Your thesis is that "the sheer joy of seeing one's opponents (or those perceived as social rivals) have pain and suffering [is] the "glue" that unites Trump and his supporters", right? My post that you quoted laid out my reasons for supporting conservative principles and candidates, and in the general election of 2016 President Trump was the more conservative of the two major-party candidates. I want to see those policies adopted. That's the "glue". That it upsets liberals has very little to do with it (I called it an "ancillary" benefit, as in secondary / not the primary purpose).
  #44  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:34 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot View Post
The false dichotomy of these gross generalizations is what Trump and many others before him have been exploiting. It's nothing new.

The real glue is their gullibility in believing the narrative of the dichotomy, and believing that Trump actually gives a shit about them, or will do shit to help them.
I've made the observation before that Trump is following the basic pattern of a con game, like a pigeon drop. The way the con works is you convince the target that he's in on the con and the two of you together are going to take money from somebody else. But the real target is you and the con man is going to take the money which you will supply for the supposed con. The point is that the target knows he's working with a con man and knows that a crime is occurring. He just doesn't understand what his role is.

That's the relationship between Trump and his supporters. The supporters think they're working with Trump to beat the liberals. They know that the con is going on so they are not dismayed by reports of how Trump is lying. They'll deny it publicly to defend Trump but they actually support his lying - because they think he's doing it on their behalf.

But the reality is Trump is conning them. Trump doesn't give a damn about his supporters or their interests. The only thing he cares about is himself and his interests. He's lying to them to get their votes.
  #45  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:53 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin....
And thereby you prove my point. Everything I said was 100% correct, and yet you find it so very wrong.
  #46  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:53 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
But the reality is Trump is conning them. Trump doesn't give a damn about his supporters or their interests. The only thing he cares about is himself and his interests. He's lying to them to get their votes.
Trump's gotten in two conservative supreme court noms pushed through in a row. One of which any other pol would have folded on like a cheap suit the second the first allegation came out. Supreme court noms were a single issue many republicans held their nose to vote for Trump over, and he has delivered. And if that makes you upset, I can guarantee you that conversely pleases others to just as high a degree.

I have no doubt that Trump is not a "real conservative". I have no doubt that he is self-serving. But he has run conservative policies and at the end of the day that's what his "conned constituents" really care about.
  #47  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:09 PM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
It has to do with the size of the community and limited resources. They can't afford to antagonize the rich dairy-man because he provides employment and the resources they need to function. When you talk about small communities, they don't have the levels of resources to pool into making grand societal structures. Let's talk about say West Virginia. Let's say that West Virginia votes next year to be a liberal paradise. They tax the rich and lift up the poor and so on. Where exactly does the money for this come from? They have a GDP of 57 billion dollars. That's about half the size of Hartford Connecticut's GDP, for the entire state. There isn't money for larger police forces or better roads or anything else for that matter. There are no rich people to tax and the few that do exist, you can't afford to get rid of. Societal structures that work in dense, wealthy places just are unaffordable and impractical in Nowhere, Wyoming. They have to rely on their community for pretty much everything and so a community style of social structure springs up to support these areas.
Regarding West Virginia, Don Blankenship comes to mind. For those who don't remember, Blankenship was the chairman and CEO of the mining company who owned the Upper Big Branch coal mine in WV which had an explosion in 2010 that killed 29 miners. He was convicted of conspiring to violate mine safety standards and served a year in federal prison. He then went on to run in this year's Republican senate primary and barely lost. I don't know what the solution is to reduce the influence people like him have on rural communities, but guys like Blankenship are a big part of the problem.
  #48  
Old 10-09-2018, 01:12 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
And thereby you prove my point. Everything I said was 100% correct, and yet you find it so very wrong.
You can be 100% correct and still be full of hate. For example: when a woman accuses someone of rape, your first kneejerk response could be to shout, "BUT WAIT! This guy could be innocent! It's entirely possible that no one tried to rape her!"
  #49  
Old 10-09-2018, 02:00 PM
Crazy Canuck Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
More fear than hatred. They see their way of life as threatened and they are correct.
Sometimes I wonder while I still hang around this place. Then I read a post like this, and then I remember why. It's a great post which put a lot of thoughts I had into clarity, thank you for sharing it with us.
  #50  
Old 10-09-2018, 02:10 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Give one counter example, please.
I could easily name you 5 self-styled liberals here at this board who excel at hating. Gun owners and gun rights activists are particular targets of their hatred. I'll leave it at that since this isn't The Pit and I am not going to derail the thread. If that doesn't suit you, take it up with the concierge.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017